Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

America will it ever have its own Chilcot report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    This is a red herring : we do not discuss other actions, but the question if the war against Iraq was legal : the war was supported by Potus, Cotus, Scotus and the US people . The war was opposed by the friends of Al Qaeda and later sabotaged by the liberals in Congress and the administration .
    You said:
    There is no need for the war against Iraq to be justified : the war was legal , it was made legal by Congress that gave the president the consent to start a war .

    All the rest is waffling .

    Which I called absurd. Saying it was legal and thus beyond reproach is a logically unsound argument. I've pointed out the hypocrisy in this claim by showing that the logic doesn't stand when applied to analogous situations, hypothetical or not.

    It is further absurd if you are going to then further claim that what the public learned post-invasion cannot be considered when judging the invasion, or examining the decision making processes, or intelligence failures, or political stunts, or all the many other aspects to the invasion that occurred. Again, this ties back into the fact that other courses of actions - alternatives to the invasion - were also legal and arguably better for the nation.

    You alone seem to think the only issue here is the legality, which nobody else is questioning.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    This is a red herring : we do not discuss other actions, but the question if the war against Iraq was legal : the war was supported by Potus, Cotus, Scotus and the US people . The war was opposed by the friends of Al Qaeda and later sabotaged by the liberals in Congress and the administration .

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Nonsense : right is what is conforming to justice and law; the war against Iraq was conforming to justice and law, thus it was right .

    All that is needed is the consent of Congress .
    Your faith in the absolute righteousness of the State is inspiring, but you are still using fallacies to justify your argument. Even within the logic of your own argument you are wrong, since other actions can be "conforming to justice and law" yet you fail to acknowledge them.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    The fact that we saw no such damning reports after Bush left office, despite the fact that the democrats were in complete control of the government tells me that either there is no evidence of "going to war on a lie", or the dems didn't want to try and further undermine and discredit their political enemies.


    As there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that the dems will use every arm and resource of government to further their political agenda, I suspect that there was no such report because there was no evidence to support "going to war on a lie".

    Mister Liberal (Kennedy ) said : there is clearly a threat from Iraq, there is clearly a danger .

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Sure I can. I doubt this report is different from stuff Washington often produces that is supposedly "non-partisan."
    No one died in Iraq and if they did it was Obama's fault. Anything to the contrary is leftist progressive partisanship.

    Why not do a little research on the topics you comment on?

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    No, legality just makes it legal.

    Just because you can legally eat dog crap doesn't mean eating dog crap is the right course of action.

    And neither does the legality imply that other actions are inherently illegal, or wrong.

    I can legally make a right hand turn. But my destination is on the left. Going right isn't the right course of action, but going left is as a) I need to go left and going right would prevent me from doing that and b) going left is also a legal action so the legality is irrelevant.

    Hence the absurdity of claiming that one possible action is right just because it is legal.

    That's one point to basic logic.

    Nonsense : right is what is conforming to justice and law; the war against Iraq was conforming to justice and law, thus it was right .

    All that is needed is the consent of Congress .

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Two wrongs don't (always) make a right, but three rights make a left.
    You sir have just won yourself one Internet.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Which is why I never said it was based on a lie, just hubris and incompetence. The belief that the Bush-Cheney combo were sitting there, cackling gleefully as they plotted to invade Iraq to steal all that delicious oil and were just making up a reason to do so, is complete nonsense.
    QUOTE:
    VI. Use of WMDs ~ Ecological/Environmental
    Saddam's employment of Ecological/Environmental WMDs (or "One WMD Found").

    The first time was when he torched the oilfields when running out of Kuwait. He got a 'carbon offset' of sorts via the Cease-Fire and follow-on Conditional Armistice, but barely was the ink dry on those docs when Saddam dammed the flow of water to Iraq's southern marshes/wetlands/estuaries.

    The southern marshes hosted an indiginous peoples with a lifestyle going back over 6,000 years of fishing and farming while living in the wetlands, near literal 'swamp-people'. It was part of a pogrom against those in the south who'd rebelled just after the end of Desert Storm, drying up their livelyhood. But it also resulted in environmental devestation, the marshes are about twice the size of the Florida everglades, threatened extinction of numerous aquatic and fowl species, decline of Persian Gulf fisheries, threatening migratory bird nesting areas, the usual litany of environmental destruction expected when a coastal wetland is destroyed. Note that this use of environmental WMD is an attack upon the species and ecosystems of other nations in the region which have ecological linkage to the Iraqi wetlands/southern marshes.

    Was trying to find some old links to reports with satellite images showing the decade long drying-up, but will have to try and find them later. This is/was an ecological disaster about a thousand times worse than the Exxon-Valdeze spill and didn't even get a mention from unconvenient truth enviro godfather Gore and Global Warming crowd(if not done by corporate Amerika, it ain't evil).

    Fortunately just after our troops rolled in and headed north, the locals broke the dams and water flow returned after nearly a dozen years of dry-out. Some damage may never be repaired and of course generations needed for local flora and fauna recovery of species.

    We are all downwind and downstream of each other on this 'blue marble'. This reason really chaffs my chaps as a blatant assault upon Gia and would have been reason enough to get the bastard out. ~IMO
    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=54392
    Dave's Dozen Reasons for War with Iraq

    "Reasons for" being one facet. Execution and Endgame two others and both rather botched, especially considering options and potentials.

    Guessing neither Bush nor Blair, nor their cabinets/staff were very good at chess.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    No, legality just makes it legal.

    Just because you can legally eat dog crap doesn't mean eating dog crap is the right course of action.

    And neither does the legality imply that other actions are inherently illegal, or wrong.

    I can legally make a right hand turn. But my destination is on the left. Going right isn't the right course of action, but going left is as a) I need to go left and going right would prevent me from doing that and b) going left is also a legal action so the legality is irrelevant.

    Hence the absurdity of claiming that one possible action is right just because it is legal.

    That's one point to basic logic.
    Two wrongs don't (always) make a right, but three rights make a left.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Legality makes it right ; all the rest are election year attempts to blame the opponent .
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Pretty much.

    IIRC it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that gave the green light.
    No, legality just makes it legal.

    Just because you can legally eat dog crap doesn't mean eating dog crap is the right course of action.

    And neither does the legality imply that other actions are inherently illegal, or wrong.

    I can legally make a right hand turn. But my destination is on the left. Going right isn't the right course of action, but going left is as a) I need to go left and going right would prevent me from doing that and b) going left is also a legal action so the legality is irrelevant.

    Hence the absurdity of claiming that one possible action is right just because it is legal.

    That's one point to basic logic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Legality makes it right ; all the rest are election year attempts to blame the opponent .
    Pretty much.

    IIRC it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that gave the green light.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    No, its absurd to think that the legality of an action makes it beyond question.

    Legality makes it right ; all the rest are election year attempts to blame the opponent .

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    You are saying that it was not true that Congress authorized Potus to start a war against Iraq ?
    No, its absurd to think that the legality of an action makes it beyond question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by History fan View Post
    That's even more of a reason to have the US Chilcot as it could exonerate Bush completely. Remember an Enquiry is not to apportion blame but discover exactly what happened in that time frame. That's why Chilcot took 7 years , it made sure to study everything and interview everyone they could.
    So if Bush was right then this would be the best way to step up and put everything to bed.
    Inquiries solely exist to apportion blame.

    It is character assassination under official colors. That's how politics works.

    Who here is simple enough to believe that Chicot is even remote honest, factual, or balanced.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    That's just patently absurd.
    You are saying that it was not true that Congress authorized Potus to start a war against Iraq ?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X